Mcary
Well-known
I look at it this way pro's use the camera(s) gear that works best for them but being as I'm not a pro and just shoot for personal enjoyment and because I enjoy the creative process I'll use the camera(s) gear that I enjoy using. I don't have to meet deadlines or get "The Shot" if there's a shot that I miss because Leica's have old out dated sensors that lack the capabilities of the sensor in other digital camera then I miss the shot.
Personally I think too many amateurs put too much stock in what pros use and put together kits based on that rather than what is best for them. I'm sure you seen this type around the ones out taking snaps on a Sunday stroll with a DSLR + 70-200 2.8 zoom plus another 20lbs of gear on their back.
Bottom line which the OP can't seem to understand is myself and other'shere who shoot with digital Leica do so with full knowledge of the camera(s) weakness and not because we're looking for some kind of status symbol.
Richard G
Veteran
Welcome back PKR.
VertovSvilova
Well-known
Interesting thread...... It reminded me of this:
"The photographer can only desire what the apparatus can do."
"The camera does what the photographer wants it to do, even though the photographer does not know what is going on inside the camera. This is precisely what is characteristic of the functioning of apparatuses: The functionary controls the apparatus thanks to the control of its exterior (the input and output) and is controlled by it thanks to the impenetrability of its interior. To put it another way: Functionaries control a game over which they have no competence. The world of Kafka, in fact."
"The photographer can only desire what the apparatus can do."
"The camera does what the photographer wants it to do, even though the photographer does not know what is going on inside the camera. This is precisely what is characteristic of the functioning of apparatuses: The functionary controls the apparatus thanks to the control of its exterior (the input and output) and is controlled by it thanks to the impenetrability of its interior. To put it another way: Functionaries control a game over which they have no competence. The world of Kafka, in fact."
MCTuomey
Veteran
Yes, welcome back, PKR. Always enjoyed your posts back in the day.
What was the point of this thread anyway? OP seems to say, using the pretext of sensor evaluation, that Leica digital M users are idle rich photo-fashionistas contributing to the success of the vaguely malevolent business objectives of Blackstone and other Leica equity holders. Or something along this line.
How is this useful or actionable or anything but an elaborate attempt to elevate the OP's own firm and objective value discernment above others' (my) limp, subjective value discernment? Am I supposed to consider selling my Leica kit and buy Nikon dSLRs to avoid the charge of shallow gear choices? (Maybe so the OP can buy said Leica gear at bargain prices, hmm?)
Or maybe this: "My name is Mike, and I am a shallow, uninformed, stylin' user of excessively priced equipment with inferior sensors. Handling and lenses are pretty good, though. Some of my prints look pretty good, too, at least to my eye."
What was the point of this thread anyway? OP seems to say, using the pretext of sensor evaluation, that Leica digital M users are idle rich photo-fashionistas contributing to the success of the vaguely malevolent business objectives of Blackstone and other Leica equity holders. Or something along this line.
How is this useful or actionable or anything but an elaborate attempt to elevate the OP's own firm and objective value discernment above others' (my) limp, subjective value discernment? Am I supposed to consider selling my Leica kit and buy Nikon dSLRs to avoid the charge of shallow gear choices? (Maybe so the OP can buy said Leica gear at bargain prices, hmm?)
Or maybe this: "My name is Mike, and I am a shallow, uninformed, stylin' user of excessively priced equipment with inferior sensors. Handling and lenses are pretty good, though. Some of my prints look pretty good, too, at least to my eye."
Mcary
Well-known
mfunnell
Shaken, so blurred
You say that like it's a bad thing. And yet your message would never have reached me, and this response could never reach you, except that is one of the ways we have, collectively, organised the world. As it happens, it is (in theory) within my professional competence to work out all the steps in the chain which make it possible for this communication to happen. In actual practice, life is too short and internet-based communications are (by design) too varied in the paths they may take to get from A to B, or G to Q or wherever it is they're going. It is neither practical nor useful for either of us to know or care about the precise details.
If that makes the modern world in some ways Kafkaesque, well, that's the price of admission.
...Mike
Michael Markey
Veteran
Well after reading all seven pages its cleared up some issues for me .
The arguments for the M9 have been convincing in my opinion.
The arguments for the M9 have been convincing in my opinion.
Aristophanes
Well-known
Leica's CEO says they no longer serve much of the pro market, at least not with M mount. They consider themselves a "passion brand". Leica's message on the record is confusing. They state they design with the working photojournalist in mind, but then admit that their products are not cost-effective for that market, so they sell as a premium brand on that legacy, not reality:
"Stephan Schulz: Leica had a long history with professionals throughout the 20th century. Most of these professionals were photojournalists. But we realized that in the 21st century, the image of our brand was becoming weaker because Leica was no longer as strongly represented among professionals."
The S is their professional offering. My point is for all of their engineering prowess as a small shop, they appear to be shorting the sensor supply allowing consumer-grade sensors routinely outperform their sensors from CMOSIS. As a result Leica no longer meets a lot of professional spec. It's not just the price.
One poster here alluded to Leica's glass. Yes, it is great but the sensors take away a substantial amount of that effort allowing a much more modest Nikon to draw exactly as much intensity of light to the sensor with as much or more data retained through the ADC and onward. Yes, manufacturers mess around with different formulas for AS, IR, Bayer, and microlens filters on top of the sensor, but Leica's are no better than others. RFs used to have an intrinsic low-light advantage over SLRs. Now the opposite is true (and Fuji). Optics + shutters made that advantage with the ISO generally a constant because of the film. Now the critical market dynamic is ranging ISO with retention of data well into traditional low-light situations even to the point where it tests our own natural vision's acuity. Except the Leica sensors do not go there with the same fidelity as most other brands. It's one thing to march to a different drum with the tactile joy of manual focus, but quite another to watch your meticulously engineered, RF low-light advantage be eclipsed by a $600 camera.
Someone mentioned motorcycles. In both bikes and autos no one could do what Leica does and put in an under-performing power plant. It would not compete and would not sell. From displacement to torque it would all be ruthlessly tested by third parties and media (a la DxO) and graded. Leica, as a "passion brand" (Leica CEO's own term) does not have to do that. They can under-spec in the knowledge that passion, and NOT technical competence will create sales. To me it is a stark example of the business of marketing luxury over performance.
VertovSvilova
Well-known
It was quoted from an essay by a well-known German philosopher and media critic. It's from a chapter on his seminal book called: Towards a Philosophy of Photography. I didn't imply anything Kafkaesque.
He describes the camera as an 'apparatus' that dictates the outcome of the image and that photographers are functionaries of that apparatus. He felt that since cameras are machines designed by others (engineers and non-photographers for the most part) that the operator of the apparatus has to rely on being the functionary of the apparatus and not the real 'producer' of the actual result. It's an apparatus that has certain constraints and certain dictates already built-in due to its design.
Anyway, it was only food for thought. But I'm afraid it went flying past you; it was outside of its full context. And granted, it is kind of abstract and conceptual. But it does fit the current dialogue of digital imagery and the results of the differing devices we choose to use. And that we are going to always be constrained to a certain degree by that design (e.g., the "image quality") from the manufacturer, etc..
My apologies.
Michael Markey
Veteran
I don`t see anything wrong in that .
Aren`t we ,as photographers ,supposed to be passionate ?
To me thats is just what makes the brand attractive ...it isn`t solely based on technical specifications.
Its true that they appeal to some people purely as luxury objects ... so what .
Why should that affect my choice if I want to buy one.
I`d rather own a camera that I enjoy using rather than a higher spec model which gives me no pleasure.
Mcary
Well-known
And you're perfectly entitled to your opinion but guess what, despite page after page reply after reply that you've submitted to this thread other people are entitled to disagree with you! Yes as shocking as it seems to be to you the whole world doesn't revolve around your opinion of Leica.
Michael Markey
Veteran
Agreed ....
semilog
curmudgeonly optimist
mlu19
Established
There is no doubt in that Leica's sensor has "inferior" in the sense of test metrics, or its inability to shoot at 256,000 ISO. But OP needs to understand the meaning of luxury goods vs necessity goods.
Leica = premium/luxury brand
OP seems to be just calling people foolish for spending their money where they want to spend.
Leica = premium/luxury brand
OP seems to be just calling people foolish for spending their money where they want to spend.
Aristophanes
Well-known
Leica used to sell itself using Magnum alumni, or Salgado.
Now their most visible sales agents are Seal, Brad Pitt, and fashionistas:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/luxury/technology/31847/leica-gets-system-reboot.html
Speaking at the T's launch, David Bell, Leica's UK managing director, said: "We needed a product that could be seamlessly digested by the mobile communication generation, and this is our answer." The T represents the ultimate understandable upgrade for any luxury-loving casual photographer who wants to improve his or her pictures and also to own an object of rare beauty."
Not the M, but it's Leica's business ethos. I would argue that the RF design and Leica's implementation are being chipped (literally) away piece by piece with the focus on luxury design and away from the photographic science and imaging fundamentals. Each to their own.
hepcat
Former PH, USN
And who cares, really? If it takes people who recognize Seal, Brad Pitt and fashionistas to buy the products that finance the continued development of the M series, why do I care who advertises them? The bottom line is that if you want to shoot with a true coupled-rangefinder digital camera, you buy Leica. There's no other game in town.
You continue to try to make a case for something that is truly irrelevant. The sky STILL isn't falling.
This thread has gone on far too long.
mlu19
Established
This is from Leica's website. I don't believe the T line diverts Leica from their own company value one bit. I also doubt that there will be another new M for another 4-5 years.
Ronald M
Veteran
Leicas may not stack up on tests, but they stand up on my normal size pics. Pics in the dark have never impressed me much as the light is almost always not flattering.
I use mine for travel, hiking etc. To do a night football game, the choice would be different. Who says you can not have two systems?
Pros using Leica have dropped off as security keeps peple away from subjects.
They are still useable for PJ work, but there are fewer and fewer working that today. There is no money in it.
Leicas model is much like Ferrari as a luxury brand. Ferarri used to be a top class race car and perhaps still is, but most of their sales go to well heeled who want to be seen driving one. 99% probably do not even know how to extract the most performance from them and they can not drive that way on the street anyway.
Now we have the 240 with CMOS, and I contend it can keep up image wise with any dslr except MAYBE Nikons D800e. Cant say as I do not have a 240. But then look at the lenses for Nikon. They are simply monsters.
I suggest we all pay our money and chose what we can afford that meets our photo needs. Photography has always been about trade offs, bigger negs being better, but that comes with weight and bulk and film processing disadvantages. I can only do 12 pieces of 4x5 at a time.
I use mine for travel, hiking etc. To do a night football game, the choice would be different. Who says you can not have two systems?
Pros using Leica have dropped off as security keeps peple away from subjects.
They are still useable for PJ work, but there are fewer and fewer working that today. There is no money in it.
Leicas model is much like Ferrari as a luxury brand. Ferarri used to be a top class race car and perhaps still is, but most of their sales go to well heeled who want to be seen driving one. 99% probably do not even know how to extract the most performance from them and they can not drive that way on the street anyway.
Now we have the 240 with CMOS, and I contend it can keep up image wise with any dslr except MAYBE Nikons D800e. Cant say as I do not have a 240. But then look at the lenses for Nikon. They are simply monsters.
I suggest we all pay our money and chose what we can afford that meets our photo needs. Photography has always been about trade offs, bigger negs being better, but that comes with weight and bulk and film processing disadvantages. I can only do 12 pieces of 4x5 at a time.
VertovSvilova
Well-known
I think one has to admit that the OP does have several good points that are indeed true. Although he's not saying it in a very diplomatic fashion, and therefore it comes off sounding pretty brusque. So instead of a proper dialogue, it kind of sounds more like a diatribe.
And he doesn't seem to 'hate' Leica at all, but just the direction that they've been heading lately.
I'm a user of Leica and have been for a long time. Although I don't use the digital Leica M models (only film versions; I simply decided to use other brands for digital.) And like most everyone here (including the OP) I certainly agree that Leica have done quite well with their optics. But I also remember (even in the halcyon days of the Leica film era) that Leica always was kind of being sneered at, and for a variety of reasons. While they did cater to institutions like Magnum, they were still kind of a 'snobby' company in many people's eyes (check out some of their earlier advertising.)
But when Leica entered into the digital realm, I did expect them to have the absolute very best in sensors and electronics. After all, it's Leica. However, we know that's not quite the case and so it is legitimate to argue why not, and to try to understand 'why not.' And of course also in light of the Leica price tag. And yes, their current marketing is often hard to stomach.
But as far as no longer catering to photojournalists and that particular Leica customer base of the past, maybe what they are doing is much smarter (in respect to trying to be profitable.) After all, photojournalism is pretty much dead (at least in the sense of what it used to be.) And so why not use Seal or Pitt etc., for marketing. And I think if Leica did indeed have state-of-the-art guts inside their cameras, then there wouldn't be any complaining about either the marketing or the price. Nonetheless, it's also not just the glitterati that Leica employs. They have worked with Meyerowitz, Gibson, Mark, and others in marketing campaigns. Still, they also have to concentrate on staying afloat too. The whole industry has changed pretty dramatically in such a short period.
And he doesn't seem to 'hate' Leica at all, but just the direction that they've been heading lately.
I'm a user of Leica and have been for a long time. Although I don't use the digital Leica M models (only film versions; I simply decided to use other brands for digital.) And like most everyone here (including the OP) I certainly agree that Leica have done quite well with their optics. But I also remember (even in the halcyon days of the Leica film era) that Leica always was kind of being sneered at, and for a variety of reasons. While they did cater to institutions like Magnum, they were still kind of a 'snobby' company in many people's eyes (check out some of their earlier advertising.)
But when Leica entered into the digital realm, I did expect them to have the absolute very best in sensors and electronics. After all, it's Leica. However, we know that's not quite the case and so it is legitimate to argue why not, and to try to understand 'why not.' And of course also in light of the Leica price tag. And yes, their current marketing is often hard to stomach.
But as far as no longer catering to photojournalists and that particular Leica customer base of the past, maybe what they are doing is much smarter (in respect to trying to be profitable.) After all, photojournalism is pretty much dead (at least in the sense of what it used to be.) And so why not use Seal or Pitt etc., for marketing. And I think if Leica did indeed have state-of-the-art guts inside their cameras, then there wouldn't be any complaining about either the marketing or the price. Nonetheless, it's also not just the glitterati that Leica employs. They have worked with Meyerowitz, Gibson, Mark, and others in marketing campaigns. Still, they also have to concentrate on staying afloat too. The whole industry has changed pretty dramatically in such a short period.
semilog
curmudgeonly optimist
Ditto. Well-spoken. And it's not offensive unless you confuse your identity with the camera that you happen to use.